The political success of the second Hockey budget, it was observed during budget week, could be measured by the fact that no one would still be talking about it in two weeks' time.

A fortnight on and the budget hasn't completely disappeared. But the government has certainly moved on.

Tony Abbott held not one, but two, press conferences this week on national security, replete with an ever-expanding number of flags, an ever-expanding number of new national security ministers, frontbenchers, co-ordinators and legislation.

National security was supposed to be the theme for the week. (Budget schmudget.)

So there was considerable exasperation within the prime minister's office when this excellent plan was sidetracked by Joe Hockey overturning more than 15 years of policy on the goods and services tax, and a clear government position on superannuation, under a zephyr of pressure on television on Monday night.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

When it comes to national security, both sides of politics operate on the presumption that the government's prosecution of the politics of the issue is designed to provoke a misstep from Labor, or possibly an explosive internal split.

That is, it is accepted as a given that the national security debate is conducted as a very,very dangerous game of chicken between the political parties: keep rolling out more and more outrageous bits of legislation in the belief that, at some point, Labor will crack, be unable to stomach the shifting weightings in the balance between national security and individual rights, and oppose the measures. Bingo! The government can then paint Labor as "soft on terror".

Labor is equally determined to play an utterly dead bat on national security to the detriment of us actually having an actual debate. It wants to fight Tony Abbott on the economy – not its traditionally strongest turf, but an area of vulnerability for a prime minister who doesn't really do economics and his accident-prone treasurer – and avoid national security altogether.

This could be dismissed as no more than irritating political manoeuvring if the issue were not so important, and if the government had not now pushed its legislative ambit so far that the splits are now not occurring within the Labor Party but in the Coalition.

This week saw an extraordinary leak out of federal cabinet in Fairfax Media about no fewer than six cabinet ministers baulking at an extraordinary proposal that the immigration minister be given the power to strip an Australian of citizenship on the basis of an ill-defined link with terrorism, without that person ever being charged with a crime or facing court.

This was an extension of the prime minister's declaration in February that "we cannot allow bad people to use our good nature against us".

At least a third of the cabinet, it emerged, thought there might be some issues with an Australian being rendered stateless and losing basic rights, in violation of international law and without due process.

It was brought to the cabinet by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton with the support of Abbott, and reflected some increasingly shrill flag waving by parts of the Coalition backbench.

The story was replete with splendid quotes, questioning irritating details like how the measure squared up with the concept of the rule of law.

One of the best bits, though, was Malcolm Turnbull asking the prime minister whether the Daily Telegraph had been briefed on the idea for Tuesday morning's newspaper (which would have had to happen before the cabinet met at 7 pm).

Abbott insisted the Tele had not been briefed. This was unfortunate, as a story appeared on page 5 of the following day's paper.

The proposal was hastily dumped, with the government opting instead to proceed only with another measure that would do much the same thing to dual nationals.

There are several really important things going on here worth noting.

As a reflection of the functionality of the government, the fact that the policy proposal got as far as the cabinet, that the dissent was leaked, and that the policy was leaked before the cabinet even got to look at it, are all devastating.

All that talk about a reformed prime minister and proper process is looking pretty sick. We are seeing clear evidence of relationships within the government being very, very brittle (a point only further illustrated by the debacle of conflicting statements by Abbott and Hockey this week on GST and superannuation).

What's more, it is hard not to see this as policy being driven by no more than a crass attempt at political wedging and by the inexhaustible demand for "announceables".

Even the measure that cabinet did agree to is seriously problematic.

Opposition immigration spokesman Richard Marles, for example, has reasonably asked how the proposed new legislation will work in conjunction with the Foreign Fighters Legislation passed last year. The Foreign Fighters Bill – designed to stop Australians fighting in overseas conflicts, make it easier for the government to cancel passports and allow authorities to declare some conflicts as "no go" zones – can send people to jail for life.

But for people to be prosecuted under the bill, they must be an Australian citizen, resident, visa holder, or have put themselves under the protection of Australia. Just saying.

Former Independent Monitor of National Security Legislation, Bret Walker SC observed on Lateline this week that "ministers should be discouraged from thinking that they are in a position to provide something as good or better than a conviction on the basis of unexaminable intelligence".

"Call me old-fashioned", Walker continued. "If you're going to accuse somebody of the kind of horrendous murder, or conspiracy to murder, that is involved in the kind of terrorism offences that we're all concerned about, then I'd like to see something in the nature of a criminal trial.

"That is not conducted by a minister leafing through a manila folder with intelligence that will never be presented in a court of law to be tested. It is very, very retrograde for a minister to think that he or she is in any position to emulate a court of law."

Whatever the popular appeal of throwing "bad people" out of Australia, there is reason to believe the intelligence agencies would actually prefer to lock up people in Australia if they are a terrorist threat, rather than see them disappear into a lawless state.

It's just not clear how you work that sentiment into an "announceable".